ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
User talk:TOSrules
The Great EE calendar debate I tried this debate before, but people poked at me for making the Calendar instead of the points on my calendar. The reason for the calendar, Gene Roddenberry told the writer not to give a specific date. Because of this it is hard to get a good calendar along our system. I love to track TNG by old earth dates, after all it was TNG that assigned the first real and solid date, TOS no such luck. http://supernovawd.netfirms.c*m/Timelines/Calander.htm --TOSrules 20:34, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC) :The Base :Alright, onto the Calendar, first we need a stable base, Let start with the loss of the Columbia as EE0 (Exploration Era) WE are told that "The Cage" occurred 18 years later giving it a date of EE18, and in "The Mengarie" we are told that it is 13 years after "The Cage" Giving a date of EE31, can we agree on this? --TOSrules 20:34, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC) Star Trek as a Religion Star Trek, the religion Star Trek is often referred to in biblical terms, with the Canon Trek, and Apocryphal Trek. So if Trek was a religion how is it divided. You star with your TOS Bible which constitutes the Jewish Star Trek. then you have TNG, which is your star Trek Christianity. Then you have DS9 which would be the Cathloc Trek fans, and Voyager constitutes the Mormons (the other testament of Star Trek). Then you have the Islamic Trek fans known as Enterprise fans. So what kind of Star Trek fan are you? I am a Christian. (although I am an Atheist in real life) :I'm a Buddhist Trek fan. :P But seriously, wouldn't DS9 be more like the Protestant Reformation? It attempted to remedy problems in the old formula and be progressive, not stuck in tradition and pomp and circumstance (which is what Catholicism implies). Interesting concept in any case, and actually very insightful. --Broik 04:07, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::I'm the ultimate Jew above all Jews, at least most anyway. Which is funny, I'm one in real life. (What's that funny little door-bell waaay up high...) Hiya, Jim-boy. 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) SupernOva Opinions TOSrules, I've added your website, Supernova to my list of favorite sites. I like it. -- Krevaner 06:33, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST) ---- TOSrules, your site is absolutely great. Not only is it simply interesting, its also highly informative. You really know your stuff. TOSrules, my hat's off to you! -- Krevaner 07:59, 22 Sep 2004 (CEST) Revert war Do I have to get in to yet another edit war with you ? There was no reason to delete the information on Vulcan history I added earlier today. Alex Peckover 05:46, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT) :Sorry, but "The Chase" has no direct link to Vulcan (unless you wish to add it to Romulus), If you wish to talk about it on the talk page with the unneeded info on the page, then alright. I am not aware of any edit war, I know I've been in a few debates but never an edit war. --TOSrules 17:30, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT) Lincolnian politics As is written on my user page, I define myself as being a Conservative-Leaning Libertarian. And by the way, in the past couple of months, I've reall been starting to reconsider my views on immigration. -- Lincolnian 05:25, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT) :I consider my self a moderate conservative, I think I am that way because I am also atheist. Most ST fans end up being a bit liberal, but good to see an open conservative here. It does not effect my contributions, and I am sure you'll be the same. My stance on immigration is unchanged, I am pro immigration, I just think illegal immigration is wrong. But MA is not here to debate, so I'll just respect your position. --TOSrules 17:21, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT) ***Yeah, I myself am starting to get fed up with illegal immigration. That's what I meant about reconsidering my views on the subject. Illegal immigration is actually rather disrespectful of those who waited months or even years to get into this country legally. And by the way, I'm sorry for messing with your user page. That was an accident, I thought I was posting on your talk page. -- Lincolnian 15:33, 10 Apr 2005 (EDT) No problem, just letting you know --TOSrules 17:52, 10 Apr 2005 (EDT) Kirk Article Updated Hey there. I've updated the James T. Kirk article to account for the discrepancies which were discussed in the talk page. Take a look (assuming nobody has a problem with it and reverts it) and tell me what you think. :) --Shran 13:06, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC) By the way, the information on Mitchell is in the "Relationships" section. Enjoy! --Shran 14:14, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC) Re: Speculation (Re: Speculation): I was not aware that including only established facts about Kirk's life was speculation. If you really are the TOS master you say you are, you'll see there is nothing in the article's that is speculation, with the exception of what's in italics, which is where any non-confirmed information belongs. Oh, and please don't be so hypocritical, as this was all started by your attempts to say that Kirk was demoted, when there are no facts to support that. Anyway, I thought you'd be happy with the way I edited it, but I guess I was wrong. --Shran 05:38, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC) :Oh, and not that it really matters, but the name is Shran. ;) --Shran 05:46, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC) The Life & Times of James T. Kirk continues... Okay, take a look at the article now and tell me what you think. --Shran 06:43, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC) Nitpicks Hi there. Well, I don't want to get into it one way or another, but there was a debate somewhere on Ten Forward about whether nitpicks are appropriate. (Maybe you knew already, I figured I would tell you.) As for , I think it's the other way around; established canon states that Ferengi bodies are vacuum desicated and sold off (more in line with their value system as well), so is where the nitpick should go. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 02:34, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC) List of Gorn edit Honestly, that little quip about the Gorn's mobility was an attempt at humor, rather than speculation. The explanation is patently obvious... man in suit! I'm not going to jump in and put it back, but if you think MA can survive it, maybe you'll give it a second thought. Cheers. --Aurelius Kirk 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC) :Entertain does not include wild speculation, this is an encyclopedia on canon trek, speculation has to be backed up by some kind of fact, like Deneb. --TOSrules 21:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Talk pages Hey, TOS. First of all, are not to be used for conversations unrelated to the encyclopedia, as you have been doing on Bp's talk page. If you wish to discuss the TOS issue further, you will have to do it via IM or e-mail. Secondly, everyone is entitled to their opinion; no one, however, is entitled to try to force one's own opinion on somebody else. Just because one does not like the original series for whatever reason does not mean they should not like any of the later series, nor is it really any of your business how Bp feels about it, anyway. All you can do is accept the fact that he doesn't like what you like and move on. Thank you in advance. --From Andoria with Love 17:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC) : Sorry, I just like a good debate. Your point is taken, but rest assured I was not tring to force my opinion on anyone. --TOSrules 06:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Ceti Eel Hi! A question has come up on the Ceti eel. In your original draft you wrote "The Ceti Eel mate will protect the Eel keeping the child." This has been rewritten over time to "Ceti eels . . . are protected by their mates." What was your original basis for saying (a) that the eels reproduce through mating, (b) that once mated a bond is formed for protection, and © that mates seek to protect larvae (rather than the eel in whose back the larvae are living). Thanks! (Moved from User Page, where I posted it in error) Aholland 18:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC) When Khan traps the mate with the fork and it squeals the mate reacts in a protective manor. it sacrificed it's hiding status in a danger situation. --TOSrules 09:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Hello, fellow Purist!! I saw you preaching the canon news in the discussion page for Zephram Cochrane. I came to your page, and I was pleasantly surprised how you were saying the same things I always do, about TOS being the base canon, and if things conflict with it - then screw them!! Anyway, us TOS fans have to stick together, because we sure as hell won't ever be getting anything from anybody else - well, except for having TOS pissed on whenever anybody gets a chance. Message me back! --TOS Purist 02:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ::I loved your site and put it into my favorites. Yes, TOS trekkies need to stick together to avoid being drowned in TNG or something like that. Hiya, Jim-boy. 22:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)